http://www.coha.org/a-declaration-of-energy-independence-one-year-later/ COHA is an NGO specialized in monitoring Latin American and Canadian Relations for more than 30 years... Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:22:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.coha.org/a-declaration-of-energy-independence-one-year-later/comment-page-1/#comment-9016 Hendrik Van den Berg Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:11:13 +0000 http://www.coha.org/2008/03/14/a-declaration-of-energy-independence-one-year-later/#comment-9016 This is a very misinformed bit of analysis. First of all, efficient sources of ethanol production such as switchgrass or other celulose materials are years away from becoming technically viable. IN fact, we really do not yet know if they are viable at all, how much energy they require, how much water they require, and how much land they require. In the meantime, plants are being built for using less efficient materials such as corn. The fact is that, once all inputs of energy are counted, corn ethanol adds virtually no energy, it basically provides prfit for the ethanol plant at the expense of consumers who pay more for food. Sugar cane is more efficient, but it too uses a lot of energy to produce more energy. Sugar and corn also use a lot of water. And, the production of ethanol is far from a clean process, either locally or globally. Second, your analysis also states that ethanol reduces global warming. That is simply not true. There is no evidence that ethanol produces any fewer carbon emissions, and once all phases of the production process from farm to delivery are included it may actually do more harm. The fact is that we must learn to burn fewer carbon-producing fuels. Helping Brazilian sugar workers is no more benevolent to the environment than helping Nebraska corn farmers. Third, the effect of ethanol production on food prices is straightforward, and the consequences for human welfare are devastating. The poor will suffer most. The amounts of land that would be necessary to even substitute a modest percentage of petroleum are huge, over 25 percent in the U.S. How can that not drive food prices much higher than they are today? What is the author of this study smoking? Remember, the demand for food is rising rapidly, and the demand for grain is rising especially fast because rising incomes increase the demand for meat. Hence, not only will more and more rainforest will be cut down in Brazil to grow cane, grains, and to create pasture for cattle, but many poor people will starve. Fourth, your analysis entirely ignores how ethanol production will affect rural communities. Ethanol production requires monoculture, and it uses relatively little labor input. Traditional farming will be destroyed even faster than corporate agriculture is already destroying it. Brazil does not need industrial farms that wil only further polarize income and political power. What Brazil needs is for land to be distributed to individual farmers. Ethonol is, and always will be, driven by corporations and industrial farms. In sum, the social consequences of the takeover by industrial farming operations, the environmental consequences, the high costs, the lack of any mitigation of global warming, and the substitution of energy for food in a world with a growing population make this whole ethanol program extremely dangerous. The gains of ethanol production, and there really are not many, will all be captured by very few people. The rest of the world will suffer from the social disruption of corporate farms, the environmental damage, and the much higher real food prices. This is a very misinformed bit of analysis. First of all, efficient sources of ethanol production such as switchgrass or other celulose materials are years away from becoming technically viable. IN fact, we really do not yet know if they are viable at all, how much energy they require, how much water they require, and how much land they require. In the meantime, plants are being built for using less efficient materials such as corn. The fact is that, once all inputs of energy are counted, corn ethanol adds virtually no energy, it basically provides prfit for the ethanol plant at the expense of consumers who pay more for food. Sugar cane is more efficient, but it too uses a lot of energy to produce more energy. Sugar and corn also use a lot of water. And, the production of ethanol is far from a clean process, either locally or globally.
Second, your analysis also states that ethanol reduces global warming. That is simply not true. There is no evidence that ethanol produces any fewer carbon emissions, and once all phases of the production process from farm to delivery are included it may actually do more harm. The fact is that we must learn to burn fewer carbon-producing fuels. Helping Brazilian sugar workers is no more benevolent to the environment than helping Nebraska corn farmers.
Third, the effect of ethanol production on food prices is straightforward, and the consequences for human welfare are devastating. The poor will suffer most. The amounts of land that would be necessary to even substitute a modest percentage of petroleum are huge, over 25 percent in the U.S. How can that not drive food prices much higher than they are today? What is the author of this study smoking? Remember, the demand for food is rising rapidly, and the demand for grain is rising especially fast because rising incomes increase the demand for meat. Hence, not only will more and more rainforest will be cut down in Brazil to grow cane, grains, and to create pasture for cattle, but many poor people will starve.
Fourth, your analysis entirely ignores how ethanol production will affect rural communities. Ethanol production requires monoculture, and it uses relatively little labor input. Traditional farming will be destroyed even faster than corporate agriculture is already destroying it. Brazil does not need industrial farms that wil only further polarize income and political power. What Brazil needs is for land to be distributed to individual farmers. Ethonol is, and always will be, driven by corporations and industrial farms.
In sum, the social consequences of the takeover by industrial farming operations, the environmental consequences, the high costs, the lack of any mitigation of global warming, and the substitution of energy for food in a world with a growing population make this whole ethanol program extremely dangerous. The gains of ethanol production, and there really are not many, will all be captured by very few people. The rest of the world will suffer from the social disruption of corporate farms, the environmental damage, and the much higher real food prices.

]]>